Worse, he actually believes that making everyone play a total of 10 P5 and 2 whatevs actually balances out the conferences.
A 'committee' still has to pick that one or maybe two last spots. You know, without well known established criteria blah blah blah. It's ok to do it for a game or two, but just not the rest. 
I don't think you read Mistakens play off format. His format is a 6 team play off with 5 Auto Bids. The fail safe is for a Conference Champion with more than two losses. They haven't had a Conference Champion with more than 2 losses in any play off year .This is what those seasons would actually look like following his format
That right there alone entirely blows this thing up. USC was not a playoff worthy team last year. Just like there aren't any Pac teams worthy this year. It's a down league right now.
That playoff would probably come out just like the one we are going to have will. Bama, Clem, ND and Michigan...Bama wins. Bama, WV, AZ St, Pitt...Bama wins.
Bullshit. You still can't/won't answer about imbalanced conf scheduling determining seeds for a playoff. You can't address that glaring issue because it torpedos the whole thing.
The fuck are you on about. There wouldn't be a single difference in 2014 or 2015 as all 5 of the conf winners in both season were in the top 6. Period. INCLUDING the tie in the B12 in 14. Already laid that out.
The premise of your argument against the format is based on semantics, opinion and debate. I get some people don't like change,may be closed off by the traditional methods. But in the end the facts within Mistakens actually removed all the question marks over the years. You can keep debating. But I think Mistakens format coupled with the way the data play offs would have played out. Speaks volumes in regards for the need to change. No debating fact with opinion. Ive got nothing more on the topic. The 6 game play off with mistakes format is the perfect formula and a vast improvement to the current flawed system. Point BlankBullshit. You still can't/won't answer about imbalanced conf scheduling determining seeds for a playoff. You can't address that glaring issue because it torpedos the whole thing.
TCU/Baylor?
You only list 5, not 6 teams for 2017. You left Georgia out. The only real difference is USC is in, which is ludicrous and you know it, and wisky would have been in with a 6 team under this system. That Bama outrage? Wouldn't have mattered it seems since you put them in with 6 anyway and so would 6 using the CFP. It's not really much different OUTSIDE OF YOUR TEAM. So tell us how this isn't personal?
There isn't a thing wrong with 2016 either. It isn't a fact that either of the teams you are endlessly crying over had more right to a playoff berth than who was selected. It is a fact that teams with less issues were put in and most of the country wasn't crying over it with you. That's the facts.
Simple question yet again, is it really fair to you that conf records are seriously imbalanced? Again, is it fair if USC doesn't have to play UW and Oregon in the north and Utah does and yet each win/loss counts the same? How is that MORE fair than a system that takes circumstances into account? How is it not more fair to rate teams based on actual performance on the field of play, not just win/loss against other teams not playing the same caliber of teams? YOU AGAIN WILL NOT ADDRESS THIS AND I GUARANTEE IT. Because you can't.
I've literally answered that 5 or more times in this very thread alone.
Well to be fair they're also the same super smart people who think it isn't fair that UCF doesn't just get a chance in the playoff, so at least they're consistent on that part.
Same, that's why I suggest guys like clarkson just drop whatever it is they're hung up on and think about it. I used to think an 8 team playoff would be perfect and where this should all be heading. Autobids with 3 at large spots. Then I paid attention to the what the committee was doing, actually considered what guys against it were saying, thought about it, and dumped that ridiculous horse shit.
